Share this:

A federal judge who already has taken shots at the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program will decide if it unfairly targets minorities in violation of their constitutional rights.

Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin said yesterday that she had no choice but to preside over a nonjury trial because four plaintiffs challenging stop-and-frisk have waived their right to money damages.

“It’s a tactical decision that the plaintiffs are entitled to make, and they made it,” Scheindlin said.

She called the move “kind of unfortunate” because her decision won’t be “the verdict of the community.”

She also noted that the class-action case would be decided by someone “whose views have been expressed a number of times,” but she promised to “do my best . . . to be fair and impartial.”

Earlier this year, Scheindlin ruled that there is “overwhelming evidence” that stop-and-frisk has resulted in “thousands of unlawful stops.”

She also ruled that the crime-fighting program’s effectiveness has nothing to do with its constitutionality.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “It’s really the federal judiciary’s role” to decide whether “the policies and procedures of stop-and-frisk are constitutional or not.”

He also insisted that the only “tactical” consideration involved was streamlining the March 18 trial so that it moves more quickly.